Filters for Protection?

[fish]

There are so many religious issues in photography. In fact, other than religion itself, I think only motorcycling has as many religious issues as photography.

One of these religious issues is about whether to keep a filter on your lens to protect it. Do you keep a glass filter on the end of your lenses all the time? Which is it? UV, UV warm, skylight, clear, multicoated?

What's your take?

[ian408]

Uv.

[cmr164]

There are so many religious issues in photography. In fact, other than religion itself, I think only motorcycling has as many religious issues as photography.

One of these religious issues is about whether to keep a filter on your lens to protect it. Do you keep a glass filter on the end of your lenses all the time? Which is it? UV, UV warm, skylight, clear, multicoated?

What's your take?
It degrades the shot http://www.dgrin.com./images/icons/Pissed.gif .... On super wides with shallow shades, I sometimes do. Mostly I do not like to. (exception on windy days when dust and sand and salt spray are potential issues)

[patch29]

I would say no. I fall on the side of the fence that I do not want anything between my lens and subject that does not have to be there. I don't use one on my Canon, Hasselblad or Large Format lenses. That said I do carry a 77mm UV just in case I get into a really bad situation where I know the lens will get something on it, but I cannot remember the last time I used it. I will usually just be very careful and clean the lens first chance I get.

[zero-zero]

I often work in shipyards and other industrial plants where it's easy to walk into welding sparks, or have a faint cloud of paint blown around one from the guy spray painting 30 meters downwind. I like to use a high quality UV filter there, and a lens shade not only for glare but for additional front-element impact protection. I like B+W or the Hoya ultra-thin series, which are multicoated and much thinner than normal ones, although friggin' expensive. I'll never stack them (the Hoyas don't even have a front thread), and I'll take them off in some lighting situations where glare or loss of contrast is a risk.

In the studio, they all come off, and I try to filter the light sources instead of the lens.

Roberto.

[DoctorIt]

Like many novices, I succumbed to buying a cheap UV the day after my 300D was delivered. I think it was more of an impulse buy cause "now I have an SLR, I need accessories!". Since then, I bought a better lens than the bundled 18-55 EF-S and I've decided that it doesn't make sense to put a $15 piece of glass in front of my $400 piece of carefully designed glass.

I still keep it in my bag, think I used it once when it was snowing real hard. Shot came out crappy anyway.

[jimf]

I'm still of the camp that says that replacing a cheap filter beats replacing an expensive lens. If the shot quality is really important I'll take it off, or if I want to swap a polarizer on and off quickly (why the hell can't they make a quick mount for a polarizer?) but by and large I leave it on.

'Course I am probably less careful with my lenses than a lot of people.

I have historically used skylight filters, but mostly UV now.